Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brooks and Rolfe.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Brooks and Rolfe.jpg

The license makes no sense. This is a very novel definition of threshold of originality. This image is clearly under copyright by the police department to which the officer wearing the bodycam belongs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me before deleting or transfer as fair use to en.wiki yourself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep (uploader) The video doesn't meet the threshold of originality, no more than a security camera or dashboard camera. No human being made any creative choices of any kind, neither "in front of" nor "behind" the camera (i.e. they didn't compose or stage the shot). In fact, the only action taken by a human being was to activate the camera. See examples cited at w:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices. Not to be pedantic, but when it comes to composition of this picture, I am the human being who selected this particular frame and cropped it. I probably put more creative effort into this work than the person who activated the camera and wore it on his body. And I'm happy to license my work CC-BY-SA :-) Note that there are multiple uploads on Commons of stills from body cameras and other security cameras (e.g. File:Rayshard Brooks Bodycam.jpg, Category:Police bodycam footage), so the outcome here may affect other files. Levivich (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to note that Category:Police bodycam footage includes videos from California government works which are PD. Georgia (state) government works are iffy copyright-wise.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Copyright law – at least in the US – requires originality. For photography and videography, originality can lie in the choice of camera angles, the framing/composition, panning, etc. However, when you have a fixed camera, like CCTV or a dashcam, there is no artistic choice of where to point the camera – the camera is either pointing in a fixed direction, or the direction it is pointing in is determined by pragmatic non-creative considerations. When it comes to a bodycam – if a person is wearing a bodycam with some sort of creative (such as artistic or journalistic) intent, and choosing which way they point their body in order to produce a particular sort of footage, then it may well be subject to copyright; but when they just turn it on – or it is running all the time – and then they go about their business without thinking about what the camera is recording, then how is there going to be the necessary originality required for copyright law? A police officer talking to a suspect is focused on their interaction with the suspect, what the suspect is doing, whether they are complying, whether they are a threat, not on the quality of the footage produced by their bodycam – since they have no creative (artistic or journalistic) intent acting upon the footage produced by the bodycam, hence they (or their employer) have no copyright in the footage. So, police bodycam footage is likely in public domain in the US, even when state or local governments generally claim copyright over their employee's on-the-job works – there is simply no copyright to be claimed. Mr248 (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Kept: per arguments. --JuTa 05:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)